Reply #92: That is simply not true

[karynnj]

Here, if you seriously look at Kerry's positions on what to do in Iraq - there are very consistent threads. In 2004, when he could anticipate the power of being President, he spoke of an international summit bringing in the neighbors and the international community, working with other countries to rapidly train Iraqis so they could take over National Security, pushing the Iraqis to work together to create a government, rehabilitation of the country with Iraqis getting the jobs.

When he lost - he continued in the Senate foreign Relations Committee to push for these same items. He has pushed Rice on each of these issues:
-he pointed out in at Rice's confirmation hearings in early 2005, that Jordan, Egypt, Germany and France all told him that they would train significant numbers of Iraqis in their countries. The US could have chosen some of the best people in Iraq, sent them on these programs and gotten back trained police and security people in large numbers.
-he questioned her on the utter failure of their diplomacy both within Iraq and in using the self interest of the neighbors to move Iraq to a better place
- he has spoken since 2004 about the need to make it clear that we don't want occupation (switching to say we need to move from occupation when the reality was that there was an occupation) - in this regard he pushed for taking the American face off things with regional and international involvement and a commitment to no new bases.

The new proposal recognizes that the situation is worse - it drops reconstruction (likely because it's clear Bush won't do this) but it still talks of the Iraqis (not us) needing to create a government, the need for diplomacy, and the need for Iraqis to take over their own security.

Kerry's proposals evolve in adaptation to the circumstances - they are not radical shifts (or FFs) in response to public opinion.

On things other than Iraq Kerry almost always has a consistent record or one that clearly evolved and where he explained what caused him to feel a change in position was needed. It was Clinton who told Kerry to come out for all the gay bashing anti-gay marriage resolutions - that often took away legal rights or benefits gay couples had - to gain moderate to conservative votes. Kerry's response was supposedly immediate - he would never do that. In fact with Kerry's 20 year record on gay rights and Kerry's inability to lie effectively, it wouldn't work. Clinton could be a chameleon, Kerry can't and he places a huge value on integrity.